RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01071
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) from the
Tactical Fighter Weapons Center Protocol Office, Nellis AFB, NV from
24 April 1978 – 28 March 1982.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The package was not submitted until now for reasons beyond her
control.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a letter from her former
supervisor and recommendation, a letter from her former indorsing
official, a recommendation from her former commander, two character
references, copies of performance reports, copies of awards and
decorations, and four letters of appreciation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the
application and states that the applicant has not provided
documentation showing she made any attempt in over 18 years to inquire
about or obtain a decoration for the period 1978-1982. She has not
provided any documentation showing that a recommendation was submitted
into official channels within two years of her meritorious service for
that period. They state the RDP was not requested until 18 years
after the closeout date of the decoration period, and was signed by
retired personnel in her then chain of command. Furthermore, the
applicant has not submitted any documentation showing the
recommendation package was placed in administrative channels to the
original approval authority. The application package was returned to
the applicant to process the recommendation package through
administrative channels; however, the package was returned, and the
applicant stated she had exhausted all administrative channels. She
did not provide any documentation to (disapproval memorandum or
notice) substantiate this claim. Neither the applicant nor any of the
recommending officials have provided justification for waiting over 18
years to request this decoration. Her grade was airman, senior
airman, and then sergeant while assigned to the 474th, which is the
majority of the period in question, before transferring to another
unit on Nellis AFB, yet there is no recommendation from anyone in that
chain of command. She was assigned to the USAF Tactical Fighter
Weapons Center Protocol office for only six months. Furthermore, an
end of tour decoration is not automatic. They state that it would be
an injustice to all other service members to grant the applicant’s
request to award a decoration for accomplishments over 18 years ago.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that she
contacted her supervisor and other key individuals concerning the
decoration in question numerous times. She states this information
has been fully documented to the best of her ability, as well as
members of her former chain of command, including the commander who is
now a retired four-star general. She apologizes for taking over 18
years to submit the package. However, this was beyond her control.
She further states that she hopes the misleading verbage in AFPC’s 25
May 2000 letter does not give the Board a negative impact on their
decision and they will approve her case based on the merit.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 9 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 May 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 00.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 6 Jul 00.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s total promotion score for the 99E5 cycle is 275.76 and the score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 276.70. Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that, before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on...
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question. DPPPWB states that the special order awarding the applicant’s AFAM does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 00E7 because...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 20 April 2001, the applicant provided statements from her former rating chain and requests reconsideration of her appeal. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation provided by the applicant, the majority of the Board finds sufficient evidence to award her the AFCM. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01071 INDEX CODE: 107.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00236
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00236 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JUL 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Purple Heart (PH). The applicant submitted an application dated 19 March 1982 requesting award of the PH. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00372
At that time, he considered this submission lost and contacted his previous squadron commander. The decoration package was resubmitted with his approval to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base, this being the third submission in less than three years. However, inasmuch as the applicant contends that the inclusion of the AFAM would make a difference in his selection to the grade of staff and technical sergeant in order to resolve any injustice to the applicant we recommend the...
The pilot of the 25 August 1972 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC and states that during the mission the applicant played an extraordinary role in pre-planning, coordinating and ensuring the success of reconnaissance and air strikes. As such, they believe he received sufficient recognition for his achievement during aerial flight. Of the Airborne Interpreters who participated in the Rustic Operation, the applicant is one of only two individuals who did not receive at...
The pilot of the 1 December 1971 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC, 1 OLC, and states that due to the applicant’s quick and accurate interpretation of the Cambodian Ground Commander’s requests during the mission, they were able to place seven separate sets of fighters in and around Kampong Thma as close as 100 meters of the friendly forces, preventing the overrun of the city and saving the lives of many friendly Cambodian troops. Applicant’s complete submission, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02156
In 1974, a recommendation to award the applicant the BSM was considered and denied by the 13th Air Force. While the applicant contends he was not submitted for any decorations because of the classified nature of his duties, many intelligence personnel were recommended for decorations during the contested period in Vietnam, and many decorations were approved. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00838
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 July 2003, for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03385
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested OPR included a statement from a former supervisor who manipulated a former employee to file a sexual harassment complaint in order to discredit him. The rating chain and commander determined that it was appropriate to mention this within his 10 May 2001 OPR. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...